Roman, Thanks for the quick reply. Given that the answer is the one from the referenced email transaction (for the benefit of others, "The reasoning that motivated this document being PS was that it was updating other PS documents. No more nuance than that." ) I am really happy about that -- it is, fwiw, the conclusion I would have reached and the argument I would have made. I think a sentence to that effect somewhere in the document (or at least the datatracker) would have been helpful. The current Abstract and Introduction effectively make the point that no technical changes are involved, but that is not explicit and not bound to the idea of a standards track document. However, given that the IESG has already processed the document, I'm not convinced that would be worth the trouble now to make that sort of change. _However_, I do expect the IESG to be consistent. While it probably is not worth the trouble to go back and identify and reclassify earlier examples, I assume we will not see documents that make substantive technical modifications to, or alter the requirements of, standards track Technical Specifications published as BCPs in the future. thanks again, john --On Friday, October 22, 2021 23:27 +0000 Roman Danyliw <rdd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi John! > > Thanks for the review. More inline ... > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John C Klensin <klensin@xxxxxxx> >> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 5:14 PM >> To: The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> >> Cc: draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers@xxxxxxxx; The IESG >> <iesg@xxxxxxxx>; rfc- editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Updating References to the >> IETF FTP Service' to Proposed Standard >> (draft-danyliw-replace-ftp-pointers-06.txt) > > [snip] > >> So a quick question: What is the justification for classifying >> this as a Proposed Standard? > > [snip] > >> At least according to what I see in the datatracker, this >> question did not come up during the IESG review either. > > [snip] > >> I >> think an explanation is in order and/or perhaps a >> pre-publication change to BCP. > > This question came up even earlier than IESG review, in IETF > Last Call: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/last-call/oMhqRigr4nbRSM > ll5NY4zXpZu20/ > > Regards, > Roman
